A blog by Jay Livingston -- what I've been thinking, reading, seeing, or doing. Although I am a member of the Montclair State University department of sociology, this blog has no official connection to Montclair State University. “Montclair State University does not endorse the views or opinions expressed therein. The content provided is that of the author and does not express the view of Montclair State University.”

Subscribe via Email

Could We Use a Queen?

June 23, 2007Posted by Jay Livingston

Dan Myers, in a recent installment of Blue Monster in Europe hears the band at Buckingham Palace play “Stayin’ Alive” and speculates, “The flag was up on the top of the palace, indicating that the Queen was home. I would like to think, therefore, that this performance was a personal request and that she was upstairs working on her own electric slide.”

I watched “The Queen” on DVD recently, which is how I know that the flag Dan refers to is not the Union Jack but the Royal Standard.

Here’s a clearer image.
It’s not the British flag, the Union Jack.

It’s difficult for us Americans to grasp the idea of monarchy. “Stupid” was the comment of the teenager-in-residence sitting just down the couch from me as we watched the film.

But there’s something to be said for having a ceremonial head of state, someone who symbolizes the nation as a whole and who stands above partisan politics. The Queen is so far above politics that she’s not allowed to vote. We learn this early in the film, which opens with the election of Tony Blair as prime minister.

“The sheer joy of being partial,” says the Queen. As a person, she no doubt has her political preferences. But as the Queen, she must remain impartial. She is someone the entire country can look to as its leader.

Most European countries, with their long histories of monarchy, have retained a nonpolitical figure as symbolic ruler of the country. In some countries (England, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, etc.) it’s an actual monarch; in others, it’s a president, who has only ritual duties, while the actual business of running the country falls to the elected prime minister.

But in the US, we have this strange system where a partisan politician is also our ceremonial head of state. It is he who represents the country, attending state ceremonies, recognizing ambassadors, conferring honors, and carrying out other symbolic duties. In the minds of some citizens, to disrespect the president, therefore, is to disrespect the country, even if, as happened in 2000, that president got fewer votes than his opponent. How often have we heard that we must stand behind our president merely because he is our president?

To erode the good will that comes with this symbolic position, a president has to do a really bad job and over a fairly long time. It can be done (Mr. Bush’s latest ratings show only 26% of the country favorable, 65% unfavorable), but it takes sustained effort.

Giving the mantle of symbolic head of state to a partisan politician also can lead to the kind of arrogance we’ve come regretfully to expect of our presidents. They can come to think of themselves in near-kinglike terms — think of Lyndon Johnson’s famous remark, “I’m the only president you’ve got” — rather than as elected politicians. The Bush administration has taken this arrogation of power further than any of its predecessors, with their belief that they can ignore laws they don’t like, withhold information from the Congress and the people, and use the justice system as a political tool.

There may be something about consitutional monarchies that curbs such arrogance. An early scene in “The Queen” shows Tony Blair coming to Buckingham Palace. He has just won the election in a landslide, but he will not be prime minister until he kneels before the Queen and is officially requested by her to form a government. As historian Robert Lacey says in his commentary track on the DVD, “People feel it’s good that these politicians have to kneel to somebody to be reminded that they are our servants.”

In the US, the president is sworn in by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court being the closest thing we have to an impartial power. But the justices are appointed by politically elected presidents, and as recent history has shown, the Court is quite capable of pure political partiality. Does anyone really believe that the vote in Bush v. Gore was about the law and not about politics? All those five votes that in effect gave Bush the election were Republican appointees. The two Democratic appointees sided with Gore.

Nobody, not presidents or prime ministers, appoints the Queen. Moreover, as historian Lacey notes, the prime minister has to meet with the Queen every week and report to her. The US president does not have to report to anyone. Cabinet members and other administration officials may testify before Congress, and the president himself may hold press conferences. But as the current incumbent has demonstrated, it’s possible to greatly limit the amount of such questioning.

The only thing the US has that takes on some of the magisterial symbolism of the Queen is the flag, which, as an inanimate piece of cloth, cannot do all the things the Queen does. Less officially — only somewhat less officially— there’s God. But over the last half century or so, the Republicans have successfully claimed both of these as belonging exclusively to their party.

As “The Queen” unfolded, the more I watched this very human figure sorting our her roles as grandmother, mother, ex-mother-in-law, and Queen of England, the more I thought that perhaps monarchy isn’t such a bad idea.(Hat tip and deep bow to Philip Slater, who blogged along similar lines to this post for his Fourth of July essay at Huffington Post.)

4 comments:

Jay, this was a very nice post , thank you. I haven't seen the movie yet but it's on my list..so someday. Here in Canada we have a very strong group in great support of the monarchy..The Monarhist League of Canada http://www.monarchist.ca/new/about.htmlSome interesting reading. They're a strong willed group and would love to bring the Union Jack back as our only flag!

I though that the Governor General functioned pretty much as a ceremonial leader, a stand-in for a monarch. Still, it's interesting that there are monarchists. Here in the US, we have all kinds of nutty groups, but I don't know of any monarchists.

Yes, the Gov.Gen. represents The Queen and he/she is appointed byThe Queen on the advice of our P.M. We're is a parliamentary democracy &a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State-the Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State...there was a time when "God Save the Queen" was sung and there was no "Oh Canada" ...the only flag was the Union Jack..the demise led way to the "Monarchsist"movement,stronger than ever....they would rather see Canada the "old" way.P.S.-We have our share of "nutty groups" as well.

It’s interesting how your response is very similar to what i felt after watching the movie . We in India recently elected our first women President . I am told by the press here it is something I should be proud of . But I am not really supportive of the political tradition and ideology she belongs to.The functions of the Queen and Indian President are pretty much the same ,to appoint the new Prime Minister based on the support he has in the Parliament. That is one of the reasons he/she leaves the political party they belonged to.However , as was clear in these elections which were heavily debated in the media with a lot of skeletons taken out of the cupboard it was clear that Presidents are after all elected on the basis of their political affiliations . I in general feel from your post and things I read after watching the movie and the presidential elections in my country that in democracy the difference between politics and governance is lost. Unlike politics , Government is not partial.